To Think that Grad & Apprenticeships are now only for Diversity Candidates

I agree with much of your post. However, I think its important to remember that diversity schemes are not an act of altruism by employers seeking to be fairer. They often have a primary aim of increasing representation in the work force because that will benefit the business or organisation. In the case of the Met, they doubtless feel public relations with certain groups will be improved by having people from those groups on the work force.
I wish we could move away from the idea of diversity schemes being just about being fairer and helping disadvantaged people, doing them a favour as it were; and see them as about bringing in people who have much to offer and will improve the business in some way but without the schemes would be lost to the business.

Another assumption that annoys me is that because certain groups are being positively targeted, it's no longer on merit. As though previous hiring practices were on merit. They weren't! They were on similarity bias (he went to the same school as me), class bias (her parents are professionals who know how to guide her through the process) and hidden racism and sexism (those people are lazy workers, she'll just run off and have babies, etc. ). It's still on merit, it's just that the pool of people to pick from is deliberately widened so that the best people are found. It was the white wealthy boys that previously benefited from positive discrimination!

Ahh, the Met. It’s so famously free of racism and sexism that I can’t possibly understand why they would want to support and increase the number of ethnic minority and female leaders…

My DH is with the Met and they have a Leadership/Mentoring programme to help existing employees get into more senior roles but it’s only open to Diversity candidates. There isn’t a similar scheme for White, Working Class candidates like DH so he hasn’t had the same support to get to Sgt or Inspector as his non white colleagues even though as a working class man from an estate raised by a single mum, there’s no privilege there.

I think all white people get lumped together as privileged but white working class (I.e not attending private school and growing up in lower income households) are the lowest attainment group in the UK behind minority groups.So should get equal access to support as Diversity candidates and maybe the term Diversity is widened to include all groups underrepresented in that sector.
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/2270/underachievement-in-education-by-white-working-class-children/publications/

I don’t disagree with diversity schemes and certainly in the large companies I’ve worked at, grad and apprentice schemes are open to all and not weighted towards diversity. Banking and Consulting are still very middle class and grammar/private school heavy for ALL ethnicities (I say that as a non white ex Consultant who was one of maybe 12 in a group of 150 on the grad scheme) so they do need more diversity schemes. But again focus on smart, capable high achieving kids from state comps and lower income background who’ve still done well at uni despite not having the support, inspiration or tools to make it as easy as their peers.

I'm sorry, I don't understand? Families living on a total income of under £20k are not considered "well off" according to the measures of poverty in our society. They are considered on the PL. So 'well off families on under £20k' are not an 'irrelevant' group, but a non existant one!
In the majority of cases children living on the PL will be eligible for FSM, making them also eligible for the scheme in the OP.

Well I absolutely agree with this. Whoever thought ‘blind assessment’ was fair? Absolutely ridiculous. As someone who does hire, I am really interested in meeting a student who, against all odds, excelled in their grit comp, made it to a good uni and did well. Why shouldn’t I know that. Instead we have no idea.

Really my last word. Deloitte opportunities below. DS was offered a place on their grad scheme. ( He didn't take it; he went elsewhere). As you can see, there are a couple of schemes for black people and women. There is also a scheme for poor students and those on school meals. Which includes white working class boys.

But the majority of schemes, including the grad scheme, are open to all.

www.deloitte.com/uk/en/careers/early-careers/early-careers-programmes.html

A lot of unemployed parents then below the £7400 income.
i suppose all these " well off" families on under 20k are irrelevant then

Sigh. They do hire white people in huge numbers. There are a few- very few- schemes for women, black people and the economically disadvantaged ( which includes white people!). I might add that DS fits into none of these, but you don't catch him whining. The spreadsheet that OP linked shows many opportunities for men, white or not.

There are many brown people with 4 a stars and firsts who don't get on these schemes either! It's a combination of grades- OP's son's grades are very likely not good enough because the competition has 3 or 4 A stars- test ability, and the ability to fit into company culture. The last two can only be achieved by incessant practice. Which is why DS did poorly in his first 50 applications, and then started doing better once he started working on the feedback.

Every company wants to make a profit. They are not interested in hiring stupid or lazy people.

I don't have anything more to say about this really. No point trying to convince terminal victims.

If a white person’s son doesn’t get on an incredibly competitive grad scheme, because that grad scheme doesn’t hire white people, at all, then it’s not competitive is it?

No white person/company would ‘get away’ with advertising roles purely for ‘white working class boys’ would they?

Are you saying that discriminating against people in the past justifies discriminating against other people now?

People are not talking about randomly blaming anyone just because their child did not get a job. They are saying that companies are openly choosing candidates based on race, including formalised schemes to do make such selections.

And yes, lots of people who are not white have complained that they have been cut out of employment, education, and so on. And they have been listened to, it's now illegal and socially unacceptable.

I've heard some banks saying they want 20% diversity hires which is an awfully high number given the fabric of the population.

Eh? Almost 4% of the population are black, 3% mixed race and over 8% asian. Thats 15%. Thats the population as a whole but actually the rates are higher in younger age groups. Hiring 20% diversity probably just about gets to hiring candidates representative of the population when you factor in disability & other diversity factors.

It's increasingly not the case in the Us, either. There is now a significant black middle class in the US, where the families have been MC for two, three, or sometimes 4 generations.They don't have any greater connection to their poor ancestors than I do to my grandfather who came from a Glasgow slum.

And there are now increasing demographics of black immigrants who are a totally differernt kettle of fish. Caribbean immigrants have always done well in North America - my own doctor growing up in the 70s was Trinidadian. And they are being joined now by Africans - Nigerians are one of the most successful groups, in terms of income and educational achievements, in the whole of the USA.

The old assumptions about race being a reliable class signifier in the US don't really hold any more.

So 80% not diversity hires

I havent checked the stats on the spreadsheet but seems significantly more that 20% for internships. I object to any blocking at the application process - once you specify a criteria then it should be up for debate...why not white Romanians from deprived areas? Are they less deserving than black middle class women?

Out of interest @RubySquid 31% of children in the UK are classed as living in poverty. 25% of children are eligible for FSM. If we take into account the children living in poverty who are not yet school age so don't appear on the FSM stats, it does appear that poverty and FSM are sufficiently linked to use entitlement as an indicator of poverty, in the absence of a better measure.

PL income changes in the amount as its relative, it means having an income below 60% of the national median. You can google for the current figure if youre interested, but i think around £20k.
I think you've misunderstood the criteria for FSM eligibility. The £7400 isn't the total household income ceiling for eligibility. It's the ceiling for the amount of earned income you can have if your eligibility for FSM is based on being a UC claimant. People in this category would have their UC as well as the £7400 they earned.

So 80% not diversity hires.

The laws against delivering jobs to people based on their race came about because people thought that was wrong, not because they liked it.

Refusing to hire someone because your customers don't like their race is immoral. Society has been pretty big on this idea for some decades now. I am not sure why suddenly, over the last few years, people are shocked by this idea.

Why are you assuming it's all white middle class?? Majority of white people in the UK are not middle class..what about white Europeans?

Universities now routinely select students with lower grades. It's fairly usual for even the most prestigious unis to take students who achieve AAB grades, which is many grades below the top grades.

Once in Uni they have access to the same application process and help. The Op was discussing internships so the playing field is level given assessments are online and rarely Infront of a human until the very final stages. They test students on subject matter, so if you are a Maths undergrad you will be assessed on your mathematical thinking. If computer science you will be tested on programming and computational thinking.

Great candidates will get through since they are all attending the same lectures, being taught the same, so no need for DEI once at Uni.

Out of interest then what is the poverty line income.Under £7400? As that's the FSM level

The Op was specifically referring to Internships which could lead to grad jobs. Many well qualified students can't apply because they are not considered DEI. So the door is shut and they have no chance of competing.

This is what has changed and I don't think it's positive. It must be demoralising and divisive when you have 2 students on the same course, same Uni, same ability. One can apply for internships, the other can't because of their skin colour. It seems bizarre to me. Rishi would have got a helping hand over a white person from a relatively poor family.

I don't agree that skin colour is a basis for pre screening anyone. The reason men are more predominant in finance (if the HR team looked around) is because the hours are punishing and many women, myself included choose to opt for a different lifestyle, especially as I considered a family. Not everything is racism/sexism as many of my female cohort left before aged 30

I work in a highly diverse environment. No one cares about your skin colour and we certainly don't screen for skin colour before reviewing a CV. Isn't that how it should also be?

I just don’t understand why you think blind hiring is the holy grail.

Comparing a black student from inner city London with ABB and a white privately educated student with AAA blindly will make you think the AAA student is better. This fails to see that in spite of all the disadvantage, the black student still achieved such fantastic grades.

We are trying to raise the floor, not lower the ceiling.

I have to laugh at the white middle class displeasure in this or I’ll just get angry at the lack of research and critical thinking skills.

I mean - the social contract in this case is the idea that discrimination on the basis of things like race is not ok, that it's very much the opposite of ok.

I think people understand that fundamentally, when you have a lot of very qualified candidates, it ends up being some really intangible things that are in play with final decisions about hiring that can vary a lot depending on all kinds of things that have nothing to do with some kind of objective "best". One candidate happens to have a second language that is spoken by a large client. One has some extra tech skills that are lacking in the team. One seems like she will be able to get along with another brilliant, but grumpy, employee.

But what we are not supposed to be including in those intangibles is race, sex, etc. even, in most cases, when it might count as an intangible - the law and the social contract has been that these things can only be considered under the condition that they are somehow fundamental to the role.

So year, why wouldn't people be pissed off, upset, object on principle, when suddenly some people want to change that understanding?

I work for a Bank, totally agree with all of this. Same here.